spock Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The Isle of Man's Tax Doctor informed an assembled audience at the Manx Museum earlier this evening that the Isle of Man Council of Ministers were urgently going to discuss this week the UK HMRC Inland Revenue's draconian changes to the residency rules as announced on Friday last. see section 4 1b from the Finance Bill excerpt attached which is causing the problem as it will catch any traveler who goes 'landside' at a UK airport, i.e. anyone having to stay overnight at Manchester etc to catch a flight abroad the next day, or even having to swop from Gatwick to Heathrow or other to catch a connecting flight. Apparently this may catch a lot of people who travel through the UK and who could in future be reasonably found to be liable to UK tax - so much so that CoMin are urgently to discuss the situation before making serious and strenuous representations to the UK Government. The Tax Doctor even went so far as to say it was even deliberately aimed towards the Crown Dependencies. http://www.tax-news.com/asp/res/resdomlegislation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Mmmmm, strange paranoid topic with a random link to something elsewhere in the world. Copycat you're back, I've missed you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The 90 day rule was something of a joke - with red-eye flights it was possible to work 270 days/year in the UK yet still be classed as a manx resident. It might however catch a few more than intended if they regularly take long weekends/weeks etc in the UK if they have a holiday home/caravan there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The 90 day rule was something of a joke - with red-eye flights it was possible to work 270 days/year in the UK yet still be classed as a manx resident. Or travel to Blackpool Tower every day by helicopter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf_uk Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The case is well documented and is not a direct attack on the Crown Dependencies. Its more likely aimed at Monarco and the increasing Monarco Millionaires like Philip Green who uses personal aircraft to flit in and out of the City whilst paying little or no UK tax. Just to be picky, Philip Green is a uk resident who spends more than 90 days per year in the UK running his business interests. He is paid a very small UK salary. The shareholdings in his companies are owned in their majority by his wife, Christina, who is also paid all the dividends which are then passed into complex trusts based around the world. Christina lives in Monaco. God help him if she ever divorces him!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf_uk Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Just to be picky, Philip Green is a uk resident who spends more than 90 days per year in the UK running his business interests. He is paid a very small UK salary. The shareholdings in his companies are owned in their majority by his wife, Christina, who is also paid all the dividends which are then passed into complex trusts based around the world. Christina lives in Monaco. Its great being picky as it illustrates the point better. How can anyone, genuinely, have a different tax residency to their spouse? I wouldn't disagree with you - but cross jurisdictions you seem to be able to do it, or it's never been challenged. I guess if you had to pay tax in monaco it would be a different matter, but as they aren't losing out on the tax he's paying to the UK, they aren't bothered. And I doubt the UK gov could force mrs green to be a uk resident as, well, they hire cherie human-rights-lawyer blair or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesdo Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Change in the rules sounds perfectly reasonable and fair - if you spend more than half the year in UK you're a UK resident. If you're spending that much time at airports that you can quibble about the change, you're likely to be paid enough to afford decent tax advice. I know there's some people who commute between IOM/UK working in one and weekending in the other. If this change means they would become UK tax resident and hence pay more tax, then they need to recognise that such a lifestyle is very extravagant when the world is heading into recession and worrying about carbon emissions. Either change your lifestyle or cough up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I've long thought that if the likes of Phillip Green and the huge amounts of high earning 'Britons' manipulate the system to avoid paying taxes, they shouldn't really be lauded and rewarded with various honours bestowed by the Queen. Lewis Hamilton take note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The jursidiction of a court case need not be the same as the jursdiction of residence of any party to it. It is often specified in contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharp Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The jursidiction of a court case need not be the same as the jursdiction of residence of any party to it. It is often specified in contracts. So if a contract between two residents persons of the island is broken, the case can be taken to a UK court, how does that work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The jursidiction of a court case need not be the same as the jursdiction of residence of any party to it. It is often specified in contracts. So if a contract between two residents persons of the island is broken, the case can be taken to a UK court, how does that work. Not necessarily, but if they have agreed in the contract to settle any claims under a particular jursidiction then they will usually be bound to it. There may be other reasons to bring a claim elsewhere: for example, if the subject of the contract is there. Similarly in tort, if someone suffers an injury on holiday within one jursidiction they would bring the claim there rather than in their home jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Change in the rules sounds perfectly reasonable and fair - if you spend more than half the year in UK you're a UK resident. If you're spending that much time at airports that you can quibble about the change, you're likely to be paid enough to afford decent tax advice. I know there's some people who commute between IOM/UK working in one and weekending in the other. If this change means they would become UK tax resident and hence pay more tax, then they need to recognise that such a lifestyle is very extravagant when the world is heading into recession and worrying about carbon emissions. Either change your lifestyle or cough up. Well fair to a point. We were discussing this today at work and one example given was that of a HNW who lives outside of the UK, but whose son goes to a boarding school in the UK. Under the current rules he could visit the his son in the UK for weekends, travelling on saturdays and returning on sundays and this would not count towards his 90 days. With the changes, he will no longer be able to do that. The UK has got to make its mind up whether it wants to encourage entrepreneurism or gather taxes. If it is the latter then we are back to the days of the 'brain drain'. I am not advocating any free rides, but the current 90 day rule is accommodating. Trouble is with the new rules, I am told, even going through an airport could count as a day, which could give problems for people travelling from here to other destinations outside of the UK but having to go via the UK. If you enter a part of the airport accessible by the general public you are caught. So, if you have a Manx flight to say, Gatwick, and have to come out of arrivals to check in for your onward flight, you will be in a part of the airport accessible to the public and thus this will count as one of your days in the UK for tax purposes. You will do the same for your return trip and so will have clocked up 2 days in the UK without having undertaken any business there. It doesn't take many trips like that, coupled with trips to the UK alone for you to hit the 90 limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Lewis Hamilton take note. Indeed, like he really moved there to avoid the media - s'yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 isn't the corresponding period of residence for falling 'foul' of the Manx taxman a mere 42days residence in any one year ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Not a bad taxman to fall foul of though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.